Claims

Hybrid simulation of breast examination produces better lesion reporting and malignant-feature identification than traditional teaching

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Students trained with a standardized patient wearing a silicone breast simulator jacket were significantly better at lesion reporting, identification of malignant features and accurate location identification than students receiving traditional teaching. → McInerney Niall 2022

Evidence

McInerney Niall 2022

McInerney Niall, Nally D., Khan M.F., Heneghan H., Cahill R.A. (2022). Performance effects of simulation training for medical students – a systematic review. GMS Journal for Medical Education. https://www.egms.de/en/journals/zma/2022-39/zma001572.shtml

q2 · i? · review · r2

Narrative review attributing this to Nassif et al.'s study comparing hybrid simulation (standardized patient wearing a silicone breast simulator jacket) against a standardized tabletop breast model, with both groups assessed by OSCE. The review reports the hybrid group was "significantly better at lesion reporting."

"Students who participated in hybrid simulation training were significantly better at lesion reporting, identification of malignant features and accurate location identification compared to the group who received traditional teaching."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.